Karnataka High Court
Sri Shivalingappa vs Sri G Niranjan Raj on 13 October, 2025
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:40318
RSA No. 1297 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1297 OF 2020 (INJ)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SHIVALINGAPPA,
S/O. LATE GANGURU MAHESHWARAPPA,
AGE ABOUT 57 YEARS,
2. SRI. MALLIKARJUNAPPA,
S/O. LATE GANGURU MAHESHWARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/O DHONIHALLI VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DISTRICT DAVANAGERE - 577001.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
THEJAS KUMAR N AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. SRI. G. NIRANJAN RAJ,
KARNATAKA
S/O. LATE G.MAHESHWARAPPA,
AGE 67 YEARS,
2. SRI. G.MALLIKARJUNASWAMY,
S/O. LATE G.MAHESHWARAPPA,
AGE 61 YEARS,
3. SRI. G.CHANNABASAVARAJ,
S/O. LATE G.MAHESHWARAPPA,
AGE 57 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:40318
RSA No. 1297 of 2020
HC-KAR
4. SRI. SHIVASWAMY,
S/O. LATE G.MAHESHWARAPPA
AGE 55 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O. DHONIHALLI VILLAGE,
CHANNAGIRI TALUK,
DISTRICT DAVANAGERE - 577001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.M.GOPI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. P.M.SIDDAMALLAPPA, FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS LISTED FOR HEARING
- INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, A JUDGMENT IS
DELIVERED AS UNDER:
ORAL JUDGMENT
Smt.Saritha Kulkarni., counsel for the appellants and Sri.P.M.Gopi., counsel on behalf of Sri.P.M.Siddamallappa., for the respondents have appeared in person.
2. The captioned appeal is listed today for Hearing - interlocutory application, i.e., I.A.No.1/2020 for condonation of a delay of 138 days in filing the appeal.
3. Counsel for the appellants submits that there is a delay of 138 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, an application is filed in I.A.No.1/2020 seeking condonation of -3- NC: 2025:KHC:40318 RSA No. 1297 of 2020 HC-KAR delay. Sri.Mallikarjunappa - appellant No.2 has sworn to an affidavit explaining the sufficiency of reason to condone the delay. Counsel submits that the delay caused in filing the appeal is neither wanton nor with any malafide intention. If the delay is not condoned, the appellants will be put to hardship. Hence, she submits that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned.
Counsel Sri.P.M.Gopi., for the respondents orally objects to condone the delay. Urging several contentions, counsel submits that the application may be dismissed.
4. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties on condonation of delay and perused the appeal papers, application and the affidavit with utmost care.
5. Let me see whether the appellants have made out grounds to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Let us quickly glance through the law of limitation.
The principle enunciated under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is that a Court is vested with judicial discretion to admit an -4- NC: 2025:KHC:40318 RSA No. 1297 of 2020 HC-KAR appeal, or an application filed after the expiry of the period of limitation, on sufficient cause being shown for the delay.
It must be remembered that the Court has full discretion to refuse an extension of time, but this discretion, like other judicial discretions, must be exercised with vigilance and circumspection according to justice, common sense, and sound judgment. It must not be exercised in an arbitrary, vague, and fanciful manner. Delay cannot be condoned as a matter of "judicial generosity". Condonation of delay cannot be claimed as of right.
Having regard to the words "may be admitted " in Section 5, the Court has discretion, even where sufficient cause is shown, in not admitting an appeal filed after time, on the ground that the extension of time under that Section is a matter of concession or indulgence to the appellant/ petitioner who has come late and cannot be claimed as of right.
The proof of "sufficient cause" is a condition precedent for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction vested in the Court. What counts is not the length of the delay but the sufficiency of the cause.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:40318 RSA No. 1297 of 2020 HC-KAR The Court should not come to the aid of a party where there has been an unwarrantable delay in seeking the statutory remedy. Any remedy must be sought with reasonable promptitude, having regard to the circumstances.
No doubt, there are authorities to say that the words "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction to advance substantial justice. What is sufficient cause cannot be described with certainty because the facts on which questions may arise may not be identical. What may be sufficient cause in one case may be otherwise in another. Hence, the whole thing should be decided with reference to the circumstances of each case. Each case must be decided on its facts. But it must not be lost sight of that the appellant/ petitioner will have to prove that he was diligent. Further, he will have to explain the day- to-day delay from the last day of limitation.
6. Reverting to the facts of the case, the suit giving rise to this appeal was brought by the plaintiffs seeking the relief of permanent injunction. The Trial Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 10.07.2018 decreed the suit. As against the same, the defendants filed an appeal before the First Appellate -6- NC: 2025:KHC:40318 RSA No. 1297 of 2020 HC-KAR Court. The First Appellate Court vide Judgment and Decree dated 15.07.2019 dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants have filed the captioned second appeal. There is a delay of 138 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, an application is filed in I.A.No.1/2020 to condone the delay.
Perused the application and also the affidavit with care. Mallikarjunappa - appellant No.2 has sworn to a declaration of facts in the form of an affidavit. In the affidavit, he has stated that the counsel who represented them before the Trial Court did not inform them about the disposal of the case, due to out- break of Covid-19 pandemic and financial constraints, they could not file the appeal immediately.
Counsel Smt.Saritha Kulkarni., for the appellants in presenting her arguments vehemently contended that the appellants were not in a position to file the appeal well in time due to out break of Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, she submits that the delay may be condoned.
I am unable to accept the reasons accorded in the affidavit. The suit was filed for permanent injunction. As the suit was decreed restraining the defendants and their family -7- NC: 2025:KHC:40318 RSA No. 1297 of 2020 HC-KAR members from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, the appellants should have been more diligent. The contention regarding non-filing of the appeal due to out break of Covid-19 pandemic cannot be accepted. The reason is simple. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on 15.07.2019. The appellants ought to have filed the appeal within three months i.e., within October 2019. The world witnessed Covid-19 pandemic from March 2020. Nothing prevented the appellants to file the appeal well in time or even before the out break of Covid-19 pandemic. In my view, the appellants have not made any grounds to condone delay. As already noted above, the Court has full discretion to refuse an extension of time. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Apex Court in SHIVAMMA (DEAD) BY LRS VS. KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD & OTHERS - CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11794 OF 2025 disposed of on 12.09.2025, has held that the constitutional courts ought to be cognizant of the apathy and pangs of a private litigant. Litigants cannot be placed in situations of perpetual litigations, wherein the fruits of their decrees or favorable orders are frustrated at later stages. The Apex Court has also held that no litigant should be permitted to -8- NC: 2025:KHC:40318 RSA No. 1297 of 2020 HC-KAR be so lethargic and apathetic, much less be permitted by the courts to misuse the process of law. The reasons accorded in the affidavit and the submission made on behalf of the appellants regarding the delay in filing the appeal are not satisfactory, and hence, this Court exercises the discretionary power and refuses an extension of time.
I decline to condone the delay. Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2020 is rejected.
7. This Court has rejected the application to condone the delay, hence, there is nothing to discuss on the merits of the case. Resultantly, the Regular Second Appeal is rejected.
Because of rejection of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of and interim direction if any stands discharged.
SD/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE KMV,TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34